Just like anywhere else, conditions inside a particular state are like conditions inside the whole country, i.e. not consistent and comparable. A large chunk of Oregon is practically empty. Then there is Portland, which has 60% of the entire population of the state.
Locking down Portland arguably made sense. Locking down rural Oregon not as much.
But yes, locking down Portland was at least plausible. Locking down my wife’s mother in law down in Lincoln City, however, generated a lot of ill will to Governor Brown that I can’t say was undeserved.
For the longest time we didn't have anything even approximating an actual metric for when we could reopen things, and then all of the sudden we just decided to go ahead with it. I think her hand got forced on that, because when everyone realizes you don't have a plan, they start to make their own.
Sorry for the politics. I just find the entire situation very frustrating.
We’re not a single country. We’re 50 different states with vastly different requirements. NYC and NJ did need the extreme shut downs. In fact, they should have shut down earlier and harder. South Dakota, Texas, etc., did not. Many sparse states like Oregon overreacted and shut down more than they needed to.
Of course, nobody can predict these things. Mistakes happen. What drives me nuts is that the same media that flipped out because not all states were taking the drastic measures that were needed in NYC is going to peddle a narrative about what happened that totally glosses over the lesson that those states didn’t really need to take such drastic measures.